Inhuman Conditions In Prisons: Supreme Court Issues Directions To States/UTs To Prevent Overcrowding In Prisons

On earlier occasion, the Court had directed States/Union Territories to constitute District-level Committees, which shall assess and report on available infrastructure in jails and give a decision on the number of additional jails required in terms of the Model Prison Manual, 2016.

Following this, when the matter was listed in April, the Court had pulled up States/UTs for not filing their affidavits giving data on jail infrastructure, despite its directions. The Court had also asked the concerned States and UTs to mention in their affidavit about the manner in which recommendations given by the respective Committees are proposed to be implemented and the timelines for such implementation.

Today, Amicus Senior Advocate Gaurav Aggarwal took the Bench through the report he prepared for the seven States. Amicus also summarised the affidavit filed by each State. Following this, he took the bench through the committee's recommendations and then submitted his own suggestions and directions sought from the Court. The Bench, after perusing the same, passed the following directions.

Delhi

For Delhi, Aggarwal reminded the Court that a different kind of committee is required to be set up, as suggested by the ASG Aishwarya Bhati. He reasoned that committees (district-wise) for Delhi, being a UT, would not work. Following this, ASG suggested that Delhi could have one committee. Amicus also informed that the committee members would include the Member Secretary (DLSA), principal secretary home, director general of Tihar Jail, and senior lady judicial officer functioning as principal district judge. Accordingly, the Court directed that the senior officer of this committee to convene a meeting within four weeks and submit a report in the context of the directions issued by the Court on January 30.

Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra.

While the affidavits of Haryana and the MP were received last evening, none were filed by the other two states. Thus, Amicus submitted that the present note of hearing does not refer to the compliances made by these States.

In this context, the Court also asked the Counsel for the State of MP why the counsel waited for the last date to file the affidavit. “No elections in Madhya Pradesh unlike Andhra Pradesh.,” said Justice Kohli.

Uttar Pradesh

With regard to the State of UP, Amicus pointed out that the State's affidavit revealed that eight new jails are being constructed, and new barracks are being constructed in existing jails.

However, at this stage, Justice Kohli pointed out that there is a five-year target for constructing these jails. Why should we give you five years, the Court asked and added, “It should not take five years to identify (the land), acquire and get the ball rolling.” Responding to the query, State's Advocate General Garima Prasad said this year, the state has already spent more than six thousand crores. She added that a new jail had been established, and the new open jail was inaugurated.

Amicus took the bench through the committee's recommendations in this case. The committee, in its report, highlighted 54 issues in 72 jails. Thereafter, he highlighted the recommendations that required urgent attention from the Court. This included the need to construct additional barracks and a pipeline that used to supply drinking water but has been delipidated. Amicus pointed out that the State has said that there is sufficient land available, and (settings of) two tube wells are underway.

“Now, if there is sufficient land available then the State government should take cognizance of the report and…if there is land available then there is no reason why the Committee's report should not be implemented.,” he added. 

He acknowledged the financial issues of the State, considering that this year's budget has been sanctioned. However, he suggested that issues can be segregated depending on the urgency, and work can be started by the next financial year.

Based on this, the Bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta ordered:

“The note prepared by the ld. amicus in respect of UP summarises the status of the ongoing projects/ proposed projects, running into 54 projects, out of which there is ongoing construction in respect of 8 new jails, as detailed…the status of ongoing construction of new barracks in existing jails that would result in enhancement of capacity of holding…prisoners….the proposal in respect of new jails in six districts where there are no jails that will enhance the capacity of holding prisoners to the extent 7000….the proposed construction of new barracks in 20 jails that will enhance capacity to 1224 prisoners…Ld Amicus submits that after examining the detailed affidavit of the State of UP, he has made some suggestions and sought directions….Ld. AAG submits that a fresh affidavit shall be filed focusing on the aforesaid directions.”

Gujarat

Regarding this, the Amicus apprised that the State is in the process of acquiring land and construction of a new jail. Reading the recommendations, he said that in some cases the proposals by the Government would solve the problem of overcrowding, however, in some cases, it might not.

Referring to his report, he said that he had extracted the names of the jails, recommendations, and the directions prayed for. Accordingly, the Court, in its order, recorded the submission of the State's counsel that these suggestions made by the amicus shall be examined, and a fresh affidavit will be filed within a period of four weeks.

Telangana

Amicus pointed out that though the State of Telangana has little problem with overcrowding, the difficulty was with respect to the timeline given by the State for the implementation of recommendations. Noticing that the timeline prescribed by the State is ten years, the Court said that it was “extremely unreasonable”.

In this context, the Court recorded that “Surprisingly, in respect of enhancement of capacity in prison situated in the district of mahmoodnagar, nalgonda…city of Hyderabad, the state government has stated that it will take up to 10 years for it to execute the recommendations made by the committee for the construction work, which in our opinion is extremely unreasonable. It seems the state is not serious at increasing the capacity of jails in aforesaid district, which is unacceptable.”

Thus, the Court directed the State to take up the matter on priority and file a fresh affidavit indicating the timelines within which the work shall be concluded. Further, the Court also recorded another suggestion of the amicus that shifting the prisoners to almost 200 kilometres away from their present lodgement would not be appropriate as it might result in breaking family ties. The Court also asked the State to file its affidavit regarding this aspect.

Tamil Nadu

Amicus submitted that the State of Tamil Nadu faces a difficult situation as district jails are overcrowded and the sub-jails are understaffed. However, the State stated in their affidavit that they want to upgrade some of these sub-jails to district jails. Based on this, Amicus said that the State is required to make a time-bound decision regarding which jails are to be upgraded.

Accordingly, the Court directed the State to examine Amicus's suggestions and file a fresh affidavit within four weeks.

West Bengal

With respect to the State of West Bengal, it said that it is “most dissatisfied with its response” and that “clearly each department is passing the buck onto the other without taking the responsibility.”

The Court cautioned the State to put its house in order and ensure that the next affidavit addresses all the issues without blaming the other department for its inaction.

Karnataka

Although the state of Karnataka did file a compliance affidavit, considering that it was voluminous, Amicus sought some time for its perusal. Accordingly, the Court granted the request and listed the matter after four weeks.

Notably, after the hearing, when the Court discussed fixing a token fee for the Amicus, he responded, “No, no, my lords. In fact, I was happy that the judgment on Muslim women's divorce was reported. I had the occasion to assist the Court. I was very happy to do it...I am here for (the Court).”

It is very kind to spare that kind of time and spend so much energy and getting everything done, came the response from the Court.

Case Title: Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382 Prisons v. Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 406/2013

Click Here To Read/Download Order